Month 1999.01 January.


Day 1999.01.27PC Special Mtg


PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Planning Commission –  Special Meeting
City of Vacaville
7:00 p.m. –  Council Chambers    January 27, 1999

CALL TO ORDER:
The special meeting of the Vacaville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilkins at 7:00 p.m.

A.    ROLL CALL:
Present:     Chairman Wilkins, Vice-Chairman Minkler, Commissioner Aldrich, Commissioner Dimmick, Commissioner Drake, Commissioner Turpen, Commissioner Wilkins, Commissioner Williams.
Also Present:    Community Development Director Werner, Assistant Community Development Director Rowland, City Planner Emerson, Associate Planner McDowell, City Attorney Lamoree.

C.    COMMUNICATIONS:
    None

D.    APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
    Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Aldrich seconded to approve the agenda.  Motion approved 7-0.

E.    STUDY SESSION:
Presentation and discussion on the implementation of Proposition 1A and SB 50, as they affect the financing of local school facilities and limitations on the City’ s land use authority as it relates to consideration of school impacts.

1.    INTRODUCTION:

Community Development Director Werner introduced the study session and provided an overview of the propositions and school funding sources.

2.    POST PROPOSITION 1A FINANCING OF LOCAL SCHOOL FACILITIES

Leigh Coop, Vacaville Unified School District, reviewed how SB 50 has changed state funding.  She noted that the new state facilities program is a per-student program instead of being based on square footage.  Other new changes to the program include the provision that the state will match local funds for new construction.  Ms. Coop also reviewed the implementation timelines and potential for new construction and the capacity determination for portables.
Chairman Wilkins questioned how long it would take for a portable to be placed once a subdivision is approved.  Ms. Coop stated that it could be two to three months depending on the site, adding that they typically place them during the summer.  She noted that with the new program, they have to upfront a lot of the money, but the Vacaville School District would have more eligibility.  She reviewed the per-student grant amounts for the new state facilities program. Ms. Coop also noted that schools that are 25 years old are now eligible for modernization, previously the schools were required to be 30 years old before they were eligible.  She reviewed the changes regarding grant amounts which are a final apportionment.  Once the money is allocated, if the district is able to save money, they can keep the remainder as along as it is used for other capitol outlay projects.  At the elementary level, the grant amount may be over the new cost construction and would allow a bid savings, but the middle and high school levels are underfunded, so more local funds will still be needed.
Commissioner Williams asked for clarification of the difference between the cost of an elementary school and middle and high schools.
Ms. Coop stated that the core facilities for middle and high schools are more expensive and require larger schools.  She also reviewed the District’ s participation in the deferred maintenance program, adding that they will continue to participate.
Commissioner Drake questioned if SB 50 is under any court challenge.  Ms. Coop stated that it is not at this point, but anticipates that it will be in the future.  Commissioner Drake noted that the answer for Vacaville is local money.
Commissioner Turpen asked if a local bond is not passed, would the school district have to provide other matching funds, possibly from developer fees?  He questioned if development agreements are paid, would they be transparent to the program, and would the school district lose eligibility for programs.  Ms. Coop noted that they would be transparent and they would not lose eligibility.
Bill Taylor, Travis Unified School District, reviewed how the Travis district is affected, adding that they are currently not eligible for funding, but will qualify for state modernization funds.  He added that they also participate in the deferred maintenance program.
Commissioner Williams questioned if the Mello Roos funds will be affected.  Mr. Taylor noted that they will continue to operate as usual and they don’ t anticipate any changes and will continue to collect fees.
Commissioner Dimmick questioned if new CFD’ s can be set up.  Mr. Taylor noted that you cannot require it, but they can be set up.   He noted that Assembly Women Helen Thompson has initiated AB 148, which would reinstate the funds that were deleted and raises the match from the state to ¾ percent.  Chairman Wilkins requested that the Commission receive a copy of the language for AB 148.  Mr. Taylor clarified for the Commission that unscheduled maintenance comes from the general fund.

3.    PRESENTATION BY COMMISSIONERS WILLIAMS AND DIMMICK

Commissioner Williams stated that he and Commissioner Dimmick had attended a conference at Sonoma State, and noted the other groups he is working with that are reviewing the new propositions.  He provided an overview and reviewed what available funds can be used for. He stated that legislature intends for the propositions to be in place for at least one year.  He stated that the key benefit is that in the past, districts had to qualify with existing needs, but the new policy allows for future capacity to be projected out.  He added that more discretion is being given to local districts regarding the type of schools they want.  At the Sonoma State conference, one of the points raised was that findings are not always needed to deny a project based on school impacts.  Also, there needs to be a connection between a specific project impact and the conditions that are required for a development.  He stated that the two areas that need to be looked at are; 1) that the General Plan Policies related to schools need to be specific;  and 2) CEQA cannot be used as a way to deny a project.  He noted that the new program provides a perverse incentive for school districts to save costs;  but he didn’ t want a school to be built cheaply, adding that the aesthetics of a school are important.  Mr. Williams added that if bonds don’ t pass, there are other alternatives depending on the effort that was taken to pass the bond. Ms. Coop clarified the hardship provisions, adding that all other funding sources need to be exhausted.
City Attorney Lamoree reviewed the hardship provisions and the three levels of fees that can be charged to developers.  He also reviewed the criteria that needs to be met to charge additional fees.
Commissioner Turpen felt that the impact fees would be passed onto the homebuyer.  He noted that the concept of providing services and waiting for funding is unacceptable and would not be allowed for any other type of service such as streets, police, fire, etc.
Chairman Wilkins questioned if the new program will impact the efforts to downsize classes.  It was noted that it would not.  Mr. Williams noted that some communities are being creative in the way they acquire funding.
Commissioner Dimmick reiterated that the key is not state funding, and that they will have to use other findings to disapprove projects.  He suggested that an annual review of the General Plan be conducted and would be to provide another measure when determining project impacts.  He suggested that the Commission hold a joint session with the City Council to establish a City standard.
Commissioner Drake agreed that there should be a consensus on policy, but there should also be individual evaluation of projects.
Commissioner Turpen stated that the policies need to be communicated to developers.

4.    EFFECTS ON CITY’ S AUTHORITY TO REGULATE LAND USE

City Attorney Lamoree reviewed the General Plan update review process.  He noted that SB 50 places the cost back on the citizens and developers won’ t have to pay their own way.  He noted that it takes away local authority to put mitigation impacts on developers because of impacts on schools.  He reviewed the language that relates to environmental impacts and whether the lack of schools can be considered an environmental impact.  He suggested asking developers when they intend to build and make school districts aware so they can anticipate their development needs.   Mr. Lamoree suggested giving SB 50 an opportunity to work, adding that the state will understand quickly that funds are not available and need to find other ways for funding.  He encouraged the Commission to still look at schools as part of a development, adding that there may be other impacts that would provide findings for denial of a project.  He noted that all the issues of the project need to be looked at.  He felt that it is important for the City to establish a good working relationship with developers and they may be willing to sign development agreements, but you cannot force a developer to do so.
Commissioner Turpen questioned if a development could be conditioned to build in phases to minimize school impacts.  Mr. Lamoree noted that the state does not want cities to be able to do that.
Commissioner Dimmick felt that it is important to provide incentives for development agreements that include school funding.  Mr. Lamoree noted that many communities have ranges of developability in their General Plan.  He noted that in ours, we have density ranges, and to what degree SB 50 impacts that ability.
Commissioner Williams noted that although it may be inappropriate for a small developer to be required to conduct an EIR, the City needs to look at the cumulative impacts.  He stated that the EIR that addresses school impacts is an old document, and questioned when a new document would be required.
Assistant Director Rowland noted that the City is required to provide current information, and it would not be appropriate for a small developer to be required to provide an EIR, and they need to rely on factual information.
City Attorney Lamoree noted that there is less of an ability to argue cumulative impacts for an infill project.  New annexations would require an EIR, and the City Council will look at the General Plan and at areas they think need to be addressed.
Commissioner Turpen felt that CEQA is an important issue and they have an obligation under CEQA for development that comes in for approval without an agreement.
Commissioner Williams questioned if it is an option for the City to give or loan money to the school district.  Mr. Lamoree noted that funds are not available and the City has other funding demands, such as streets and services.
Commissioner Dimmick stated that the objective should be finding ways to fund schools before they are needed, rather than finding ways to get around SB 50.
Ms. Coop reviewed the facilities master plan that is being completed, adding that a cash flow analysis will be conducted after the plan is adopted.
Commissioner Turpen felt that these propositions are a direct attack on the City’ s ability to plan their community.  He noted that acquisition of open space is a priority to the City, often in the form of parks.  He felt that by school districts having to utilize many portables, it encroaches on the area of parks adjoining the school.  He felt that mitigation fees could be used for schools or parks to compensate for the park area that is utilized for portables.

5.    POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

    Associate Planner McDowell reviewed the inventory of vacant residential land and the status of residential projects with respect to school fees.  He displayed the General Plan map to illustrate the location of available lots.
    Assistant Director Rowland noted that 50% of the residential growth will occur through annexation, and the City has discretion whether to annex.  He also reviewed the future projects that are covered by development agreements.  He clarified that school impacts on 20% of the future growth needs to be addressed.

6.    PUBLIC COMMENT

    Tom Phillippi, Phillippi Engineering, noted concern about the transparent factors that can be thrown into the mix.  He felt that there is a philosophy that there will not be fees available from the state.  He noted that some money is available, and there are easier steps and possibilities to obtain money for the rehabilitation of buildings.  He felt that it is important to encourage enticements for developers and to form a partnership with the City.  He encouraged exploring options, especially with annexations.
    Public comment closed.

7.    PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION

    Commissioner Drake stated that this was a useful session, and it has been made clear that there is not enough money for school facilities and it will have to come from the citizens of Vacaville.  He felt that the school districts need to concentrate on bond issues and encourage the approval of them.
    Commissioner Dimmick stated that incentives are important, such as increases in density, school proximity restrictions, and community benefit fees to provide schools as well as parks.  He felt that schools need to be paid for in advance.
    Commissioner Williams stated that this had been an informative session and he appreciated the information provided by City Attorney Lamoree and the representatives from the school districts.  He stated that even without SB 50, they would still have to look at school impacts in the future.  He felt that the districts need to look at the long term growth and anticipated impacts. He felt that the key element is that citizens have to understand the need for schools and be willing to pass the bonds to pay for them.
    Chairman Wilkins stated that the bonds need to be designed to be successful so that people will be willing to make an investment in the communities future.  He stated that often there is an unwillingness of taxpayers to pay for something they can’ t perceive as a benefit.  He thanked those who commented, adding that he appreciated their insights and the helpful exchange with the Commissioners.  He noted that he was interested in being able to review AB 148, and suggested holding a study session with the City Council to determine how we want to plan Vacaville and its future, including schools and industry.
Vice-Chairman Minkler felt strongly that new development should pay its own way, and the City needs to look for ways to have developers pay for mitigation and to challenge the propositions.  He also emphasized the importance of gaining the support of the community to pass bonds.
    Commissioner Turpen stated that it had been useful to see the magnitude of fees that will be lost and that they aren’ t as great as they could be.  He suggested wording motions ahead of time and having them reviewed by the City Attorney.  He also suggested giving developers the choice of paying open space fees or school impact fees.
    Commissioner Dimmick felt that bonds are necessary, but there needs to be a strategic long-term objective, and stressed the importance of using money wisely.
    Commissioner Williams thanked the school representatives for their presentations, and questioned if they have anticipated the location of future school sites.
Ms. Coop noted that the site selection process will occur after the master plan is approved, and reviewed some of the potential school sites.
    Commissioner Aldrich thanked those who participated in the presentation and questioned if there is the possibility that school funds will run out.
    Ms. Coop stated that there is a possibility that funds will run out, adding that because fees are paid as you go, they are unable to build schools prior to the homes being developed.
    Commissioner Williams stated that if the school district would provide a letter stating that schools are at capacity, it would help the City make the findings of a project.
    Chairman Wilkins thanked staff and others in attendance for taking the time to update the Commission on this issue.

F.    ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to discuss at this special meeting of the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Page, Recording Secretary